We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S.-led regime change – in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.” This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul warns us again." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

boofus

October 28, 2005, 11:05 AM

What choice do we have? Syria and Iran keep sending weapons and manpower into Iraq. If they would bring out the big guns and threaten sanctions, naval bombardment, and nuclear strikes maybe they could avoid an invasion.

NCP24

October 28, 2005, 11:09 AM

Sounds like time for a hostile take over.

Coltdriver

October 28, 2005, 11:14 AM

I'd be willing to bet a box of bullets that Israel takes out Iran's nuclear capability before Bush leaves office.

Things are going to get very uncomfortable over there in the next few years.

Biker

October 28, 2005, 11:15 AM

We're overextended now, so yeah, following the Bush Doctrine, it seems logical to mount another invasion.
Biker;)

WT

October 28, 2005, 11:25 AM

We have so many sailors sitting around, doing nothing, maybe we should send in the Navy. How fast can one of our new super expensive subs travel in the desert?

Same thing with the USAF. They wanted to field an USAF airborne infantry regiment last year. Even came out with a snazzy blue cammie uniform.

Our military is too big and too expensive. The generals and admirals need a war to justify their existance.

We should stay out of Syria and Iran.

El Tejon

October 28, 2005, 11:34 AM

Why can't we take down the Evil Eye Doctor with our spooks as was offered (or allegedly offerred) Clinton in Iraq?

Hawkmoon

October 28, 2005, 11:36 AM

Our military is too big and too expensive. The generals and admirals need a war to justify their existance.
Too expensive ... maybe. If so, it is because of reliance on too many high-tech toys of dubious reliability and maintainability. But "too big"? Not a chance. The military now is MUCH smaller than it was during the Vietnam conflict, and smaller than it was for many years following Vietnam. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now are a combination of Reserve and National Guard assetts. This is wrong.

No, the military is not too big -- it's too small.

Dannyboy

October 28, 2005, 11:39 AM

I'd be willing to bet a box of bullets that Israel takes out Iran's nuclear capability before Bush leaves office.
After Iran's head terrorist's statement about wiping Israel off the map, I think you're probably right.

bg

October 28, 2005, 01:17 PM

With all respect to the military, we can't even get a single guy living
in a cave somewhere. How do we go about taking on an even bigger
campaign than what's going on now ? Red China would love to see
us step in it deeper, then it'd be their ideal chance to jump on Taiwan
and other pacific areas. No one can tell me they wouldn't like to see their
style government end up in South Korea..Seems like this has turned
into more of a new age crusades than anything else.

Old Dog

October 28, 2005, 01:26 PM

I don't buy it ... we'd have to take some action in the very near future, which we're simply not prepared to do ... and shortly comes the segue into the congressional election year, and not even this administration could be so ... dumb ... as to expand our military operations in the Mid-East prior to what will probably be one of the ugliest campaign years in recent memory.

We have so many sailors sitting around, doing nothing, maybe we should send in the Navy.Sorry, you can't slide this one past me, not since I've spent 23 months away from home in the past three years ... You'd be surprised, not just at the numbers of Navy personnel deployed in and around the Gulf and the Mid-East, but at the numbers of us who've had boots on the ground in Iraq.

fjolnirsson

October 28, 2005, 01:30 PM

Ok, for just a moment, let's say I buy into the whole ,"liberating a nation and spreading democracy" thing.
How about we liberate the American people, before we go mucking about all over the globe? How about enforcing our own Constitution, before we go writing one for somebody else?
Just askin'....:cuss:

rick_reno

October 28, 2005, 02:04 PM

We've been getting a little short on boogie men, and one thing America needs are boogie men. Gotta keep the populace worried - worried people are easier to manipulate. Syria, Smiria...who cares.

WT

October 28, 2005, 03:22 PM

From the US Navy website. (Oct. 28, 2005)
http://www.navy.mil/palib/news/.www/status.html

Transfer 100,000 to the Coast Guard. Put another 100,000 on border watch along Syria or Iran. Another 100,000 along the Texas-Arizona border with Mexico.

Pocket.38

October 28, 2005, 04:17 PM

We've been getting a little short on boogie men, and one thing America needs are boogie men. Gotta keep the populace worried - worried people are easier to manipulate. Syria, Smiria...who cares.

Right on brother!

Kurush

October 28, 2005, 05:10 PM

Broadening the war worked really well with Cambodia and Laos, why not try it again :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :banghead:

:(

Brett Bellmore

October 28, 2005, 08:15 PM

You're always going to find yourself over-extended, when you artificially limit the war zone to a small fraction of the enemy's territory, leaving their infrastructure, command and control, and economies intact. We ARE at war with Iran and Syria, and have been for over a year; They've taken numerous actions in that time that constitute acts of war. We just haven't been waging war back at them, and thus victory has been impossible, because we've been allowing them to attack us on the cheap, without consequences.

The reason broadening the war in Viet Nam into Laos and Cambodia didn't help much, is simply that they weren't our foe, the USSR was our foe. A foe we didn't dare confront directly. Syria and Iran aren't (yet) in that catagory, though if we give Iran enough time they might make it.

Jeff White

October 28, 2005, 08:31 PM

Unfortunately, under the Rumsfeld doctrine, we are so overextended that any expansion of the war would be very dangerous. Instead of getting congress to declare war in September of 2001, and expanding the military to the size we needed it to be to fight the kind of go anywhere, pay any price war the administration promised the GWOT would be, we allowed the big defense contractors to cuddle up to the civilian leadership in DOD and convince them that war is just a videogame and can be swiftly won from the air with very expensive precision weapons...they also bought into the notion that a people who had never tasted freedom and really weren't a nation once the army that enslaved them was defeated, that those same people would greet our small contingent of ground forces as liberators and a new civilian government would magically spring forth from the fertile sands between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers......

We're still stumbling blindly down the road of transformation....creating a military that is not ready to fight any conflict in the foreseeable future.

No we aren't going to war with Syria and Iran..we don't have the ground troops to do it. And under the plans for transformation...we won't....

Jeff

beerslurpy

October 28, 2005, 08:45 PM

Well they could always bring back conscription. Call it the "immigration reform act of 2005" and offer 20 dollars an hour to anyone that will volunteer to serve as mercenaries. Lets see if Mexicans really will do the jobs Americans dont want.

20 million mexicans armed with pointed sticks could probably take china, let alone syria. Not only would syria be completely pacified, but their streets would be cleaned and their lawns would be perfectly manicured. Wal-Mart could probably open up shop the week after.

In all seriousness, Rumsfeld is going to have to find a new hobby or find more people to join his team. Since people arent volunteering, this only leaves the "eenie-meenie-minie-moe" that we all remember from the 60s.

Waitone

October 28, 2005, 08:46 PM

Once again Rep. Paul complains about a potential course of action while offering no alternative. Syria is a puss-filled sore infecting the the area. It is a base of operations for the terrorists operating in Iraq. I thought we might have learned a lesson or two about open sanctuaries during war. Guess not. What I want to know is why wasn't Syria dealt with during the first part of Gulf II? You simply do not leave sanctuaries unmolested. We are continually fighting terrorists coming across the border so I guess Rep. Paul's contribution to strategy is to plug his ears and sing "LaLaLaLa."

Are we in a war or not. If the answer is yes, then conduct your operations like you are fighting a war and that means going after the supply areas, c-in-c, HQ, political nodes, and support personnel. Maybe someone ought to ask Paul what he would do. . . . .and no, leaving the Middle East is not an answer. :fire:

longhorngunman

October 28, 2005, 09:55 PM

Let's see, Syria- a thorn in our side and openly allowing or even ordering terrorists into Iraq to kill our troops and spread havoc( also would be nice to see if ole Assad has Saddam's WMD, he DID have them and did something with them), hard to let Iraq stabilize until Syria is dealt with. Iran- Do we do the inevitable and destroy the mullahs now or wait to deal with them after they have the Nuclear bomb? There's no stick your head in the sand on this one, there is no chance for America or our allies to ever have a feeling of peace again and actual progress in the ME until Iran is delt with. BTW I believe the Bush administration was hoping that Syria and Iran would fall from within if enough pressure was applied. That still may happen in Syria( most accounts have Assad as not having overwhelming control), contrary to most Americans belief a sizable majority of Iranians would like to have the mullahs out themselves. The "elections" in Iran are a joke and it isn't like the US where rebellion towards the 'rulers' a la Cindy Sheehan is accepted. If Cindy had done in Iran what she tried here she would have long ago taken a dirt nap;) . Alas I don't see the young Iranians wielding the power or arms to overthrow the mullahs, so I say the bombing begins in 8 months.

KriegHund

October 28, 2005, 10:01 PM

Lets just take over the entire middle east.

Except isreal.

In all syria-isness :uhoh: im interested in what shall happen.

Zedicus

October 28, 2005, 11:07 PM

I'd say Serya is begging to be Glassed, & has been for many years.

carp killer

October 28, 2005, 11:36 PM

The US is one small step from the Draft. And if that happens before Bush is out of office, Hillary is the next President. And say good bye to your 2nd Amendment. :what:

Byron Quick

October 29, 2005, 01:56 AM

Our military defeated Iraq in three weeks with minimal casualties. We could do the same in Syria and Iran. The problem comes in with the 'nation building.' That's where we've lost our casualties. So don't do it. Smash the regime and its military. Withdraw to bases away from urban areas that cannot be covertly approached by insurgents. Tell the inhabitants to build a government on their own. Tell them that if we don't like the new government's policies that we'll smash it too and continue the process until all the militants finally crawl out from under their rocks.

The danger from these people comes from being intermingled with the general population and not being able to distinguish friend from foe. So don't try. Smash the known enemy and leave. Observe. When a new regime puts hostile policies in place-come back and smash it, too. Repeat. Allow food and medical supplies to reach the civilian population from non-US sources. When Ayatollah Whomever stands up and calls for jihad, blow him and all of his known supporters to pieces. Leave. Repeat. A hostile country over there begins building a nuclear complex. Watch it. When it's almost complete, destroy it. Leave. Repeat. Support the elements of a society that are congruent with our policies. Very covertly.
The problem is not defeating these people. The problem is policing these people. So don't try to police them. Just keep smashing them until the militants are so weakened that a segment of the indigenous people gain control that can be dealt with.

wingman

October 29, 2005, 08:15 AM

Joking or not a good point, solve two problems at once, I'm guessing the flow back south would be huge. Either way the draft will be used again they have no choice.

Hacker15E

October 29, 2005, 08:18 AM

Same thing with the USAF. They wanted to field an USAF airborne infantry regiment last year. Even came out with a snazzy blue cammie uniform.

What's your source on that?

There were several reasons for trying out a new BDU uniform, but none of them had anything to do with a USAF 'infantry regiment'.

22-rimfire

October 29, 2005, 08:46 AM

I doubt if you will see an outright "invasion" of either Syria or Iran by the US or even a coalition of nations. I don't think we can afford it. We still have a choice. Look at the earthquake relief business in Pakistan... UN is asking for lots of money now (ie quickly) to be donated. Everyone is tapped out including the US. People are protecting and supporting their own. Off subject, but I don't understand why Pakistan doesn't just borrrow the money rather than asking for handouts... that is what the US does and did?? I put the responsibility on them, not the so called corrupt UN (United Nations). Pakistan's first responsiblity is to its people. Ever see the member nations united in anything?

You may see some focused strikes by air or by special forces though. I would imagine the special forces people are already in both places to some degree. These strikes will likely focus on special people (leaders) and special industries or infrastructure such as nuclear, air power, and offensive military capabilities. Israel will be involved this time. Give it 10-years and Iraq will be involved.

WT

October 29, 2005, 11:05 AM

Hack - there was an article last year on military.com. The USAF was looking into forming a Ranger style regiment, jump qualified, to seize and protect air fields. The AF has so many guys with nothing to do and with cutbacks looming, had to find something to keep up staffing ...... and funding.

Last week there was another article dealing with AF on the ground in Iraq-Kuwait, driving supply trucks, etc. for the Army.

Derby FALs

October 29, 2005, 12:18 PM

We are continually fighting terrorists coming across the border so I guess Rep. Paul's contribution to strategy is to plug his ears and sing "LaLaLaLa."

"LaLaLa". Reminds me of Bush's border policy at home. Dr. No wants us out and in defensive mode which we can't do as long as future terrorists are streaming across USA borders.

Waitone

October 29, 2005, 03:55 PM

Hack - there was an article last year on military.com. The USAF was looking into forming a Ranger style regiment, jump qualified, to seize and protect air fields.Send 'em over to the Rangers. . . . . since Rangers already do airfields.

Cosmoline

October 29, 2005, 04:08 PM

http://img87.exs.cx/img87/7866/8052016wx.png

carebear

October 29, 2005, 04:22 PM

Speaking of Air Force Infantry (why do I shudder at the concept?) I saw an article on Military.Com that talked about this novel concept (from StrategyPage).

Why the U.S. Navy is Creating a New Marine Corps
by James Dunnigan
August 2, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

The U.S. Navy feels it is in need of more “soldiers of the sea.” But since the U.S. Navy has lost control of the U.S. Marine Corps, the navy is assembling a new force of sailors serving as naval infantry. This is not really new. For example, the toughest troops in the Navy Department are not the marines, but the sailors who belong to the SEALs, an organization formed in the 1960s. But the process of regenerating the American naval infantry is accelerating. There was a time, not too long ago, when the marines where what marines had always been, soldiers who belonged to the navy and served on ships. But since World War II, the U.S. Marine Corps have developed into a truly separate force, no longer available to the navy.

While marines like to think that the Marine Corps has, since 1798, been a separate service, this did not actually happen until quite recently. Until World War II, the Marine Corps was so small, and dependent on the navy (for amphibious ships and, well, work to do), that in practice, marines tended to do whatever the navy asked them to do. But after World War II, the much larger marine force became, gradually, a truly independent service. The marines were still intertwined with the navy, but increasingly, able to defy the admirals. Thus we have the navy forming the SEAL commandos, in the early 1960s, using sailors, rather than marines. Over the next few decades, the navy slowly stopped using marines for their traditional job of providing onboard ship security. By the end of the century, the navy was content to let the marines be whatever they could get away with, and the navy would basically do without them.

After September 11, 2001, when the navy sought to increase its security force for ships in port, it did not turn to the marines (who long had taken care of that sort of thing), but greatly expanded the number of “Masters at Arms” (previously a job category, not a force). Now comes the ECG (expeditionary combat battalion) of high quality sailors who could fight on water or land in coastal operations. The ECG would obtain its manpower from those who apply to join the SEALs, but don’t make it. The SEALs are a very selective organization, accepting less than one in ten of those who apply. Now the navy wants to do something with those high quality rejects. The recent navy announcement that it is putting together a “brown water (coastal and rivers)” force mentioned an infantry component, and that these troops would be sailors, not troops from the Marine Corps. This new force also makes it clear how much the navy and marines have grown apart.

But the ECG is expected to be higher quality than the marines, something close to U.S. Army Special Forces. The ECG would be trained in foreign languages and cultures, and be part of the force that provided training to foreign navies. But the ECG would also take over some SEAL functions, like providing boarding parties for dangerous interdiction missions. Most of these boarding operations are not dangerous, and are handled by specially trained sailors and Masters at Arms. These folks are also doing a job that has traditionally belonged to “marines.” But since the U.S. Navy no longer has control of the U.S. Marine Corps, and needs marines, it has to rebuild the force under a new name. Or, rather, several new names.

The new marine force will be only a few thousand strong, which is more in line with the proportion of marines in other navies. The U.S. Navy lost its original marine force because the U.S. Marine Corps got so large during World War II that it was no longer a part of the navy, but a truly separate entity. This new force of naval infantry also revives another old navy tradition; infantry training for sailors. Until about a century ago, infantry training for sailors, and even infantry exercises on land, were a regular feature of navy life. All this had faded away by the 1930s. The navy stopped issuing field manuals for naval infantry in the 1960s. But the war on terror, and increased emphasis on brown water operations, has returned many sailors to the old ways. The new naval infantry will perform many of the traditional marine functions, without being called marines.

All I can say is, "Welcome back to the party, sons of the Sand Pebbles." :D

Cosmoline

October 29, 2005, 10:19 PM

Until World War II, the Marine Corps was so small, and dependent on the navy (for amphibious ships and, well, work to do), that in practice, marines tended to do whatever the navy asked them to do.

I have this image of explaining this to certain people in a bar :D

"You there, Marine! I'm with the Navy. You must do as I ask!"

TMAS

October 29, 2005, 11:05 PM

Yea the Marines got tired of asking the Navy for help and supplys to do thier job and getting turned down. But when ever there was a battle to fight the navy was right there to give them a ride to it. Seems they formed there own Airwing too. :)

The US Marines fought in Mexico before, No reason why they can't protect Our "US" border now. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, etc..."

DRZinn

October 30, 2005, 12:36 AM

This is not really new. For example, the toughest troops in the Navy Department are not the marines, but the sailors who belong to the SEALs, an organization formed in the 1960s.I beg to differ. I've worked with SEALs, and they aren't really all that great.

My money's on a two-way tie between Special Forces and Force Recon.

TEX

October 30, 2005, 02:24 AM

Bush is a lame duck now, so going into Syria or Iran can't hurt him - maybe the party, but not him. I believe that they have been waiting for an opportunity to go into Iran or Syria, and that it was on the drawing board before the first US troop set foot in Iraq. If things settle out in Iraq soon and a democratic stable government takes hold (I am still doubtful), I fully expect them to go into Syria in force and try to topple Iran from within if possible. Every bit of progress we make in Iraq possibly encourages fed up folks in those countries to make internal changes. It would be a whole lot easier however if the ones pushing the changes were Islamic and not Americans, who for the most part are not. I don't think Syria will be as tough a nut to crack as Iraq was, which wasn't very.

How long have we been in Korea? How long were we in Japan? Germany? I don't think people get it. We are in the Middle East to STAY, unless a change of US government dictates otherwise.

I also think that what another poster said is true, if Israel thinks any unfriendly nearby nation is about to complete construction of a facility that makes nuclear bomb material, they will hammer them. They don’t really have choice when up against the kind of fanatical knuckleheads they are facing.

TEX

carebear

October 30, 2005, 04:40 AM

DocZinn +1

One on one they're usually good to go but, as a group, SEALs read their own press clippings too much.

Old Dog

October 30, 2005, 01:53 PM

You guys crack me up sometimes ...
Yea the Marines got tired of asking the Navy for help and supplys to do thier job and getting turned down. But when ever there was a battle to fight the navy was right there to give them a ride to it. Seems they formed there own Airwing too.
I beg to differ. I've worked with SEALs, and they aren't really all that great.
My money's on a two-way tie between Special Forces and Force Recon.
And a thread on expansion of the war in the Middle East degenerates into interservice jealousy and "my guys are better than your guys." Ah well; in the immortal words of the great philosopher, Dalton: "Opinions vary."
as a group, SEALs read their own press clippings too much.No doubt you personally know, and have talked with, a lot of SEALs to have formed this opinion.

DRZinn

October 30, 2005, 02:17 PM

And a thread on expansion of the war in the Middle East degenerates into interservice jealousy and "my guys are better than your guys."I just get tired of hearing about how great SEALs are, and knowing better. There are some truly hard-core operators out there, but they tend to be a little more humble. All the SEAls really have is great equipment and a great PR machine.

carebear

October 30, 2005, 03:06 PM

I'd give them much more credit than that Doc. But yes Old Dog, I've worked with them. The dozen or so I've professionally met are great in the water and ok in the woods but they with don't match up in overall skill set to the Force operators I know.

They tend to share a lack of the "quiet competence" attitude you'll find in the Beret's, CC's, PJ's and Force (don't know any Delta guys but I understand they don't pull macho BS all the time either). They get the latest toys (which, yes, made me jealous) but also are too quick to tout just how Jedi Knight they are and depend too much on the gear. Except when they don't bring it cause they "don't need it".

I've seen them, while training in unfamiliar dangerous environments, believe that their overall fitness and toughness can take the place of knowledge, gear selection and wise decision making. That can and has gung-ho'd them into trouble.

As far as interservice rivalry goes. It's almost wholly in fun.

The Air Force can do what they want, nothing would be better than for that service to get away from the "we're a big business" model they went too in the recent past. If they want to go to a real infantry component rather than throwing a little more school at their cops and thinking it adequate infantry training, more power to them. All their guys need to get time on the rifle and a true sense of being warriors.

The Navy has had a similar problem. I know for a fact their are some hard guys out there who couldn't make it through BUD's but that would be taking names given the skill set, and those are guys who in many cases signed up to actually just work on ships. My primary personal Navy experience is with Special Boat guys and Corpsmen who volunteer to serve in Recon units so I know the men are there, just underutilized right now. Sailors have a long history of being the point men for our country and stealing that warrior role from them with the "all is nuclear, all is aircraft" BS was a crime.

denfoote

October 30, 2005, 07:05 PM

Sounds like time for a hostile take over.

If Syria does not have any oil, then let be a very radioactive hostile take over!!

Why send our boys when we can let radiation do all the work!!! ;)

Alfadog

October 30, 2005, 11:00 PM

I agree with Byron and denfoote. Nuke 'em 'til they glow, shoot 'em in the dark, get our guys the hell out of there--repeat as necessary.

DRZinn

October 31, 2005, 01:19 AM

The dozen or so I've professionally met are great in the water and ok in the woods but they with don't match up in overall skill set to the Force operators I know.

They tend to share a lack of the "quiet competence" attitude you'll find in the Beret's, CC's, PJ's and Force (don't know any Delta guys but I understand they don't pull macho BS all the time either). They get the latest toys (which, yes, made me jealous) but also are too quick to tout just how Jedi Knight they are and depend too much on the gear. Except when they don't bring it cause they "don't need it".

I've seen them, while training in unfamiliar dangerous environments, believe that their overall fitness and toughness can take the place of knowledge, gear selection and wise decision making. That can and has gung-ho'd them into trouble.That, if I'd written more, would have been pretty much exactly what I would have written. I chose the short way out.

Joejojoba111

October 31, 2005, 01:33 AM

Let's see, Syria- a thorn in our side and openly allowing or even ordering terrorists into Iraq to kill our troops and spread havoc( also would be nice to see if ole Assad has Saddam's WMD, he DID have them and did something with them), hard to let Iraq stabilize until Syria is dealt with. Iran- Do we do the inevitable and destroy the mullahs now or wait to deal with them after they have the Nuclear bomb? There's no stick your head in the sand on this one, there is no chance for America or our allies to ever have a feeling of peace again and actual progress in the ME until Iran is delt with. BTW I believe the Bush administration was hoping that Syria and Iran would fall from within if enough pressure was applied. That still may happen in Syria( most accounts have Assad as not having overwhelming control), contrary to most Americans belief a sizable majority of Iranians would like to have the mullahs out themselves. The "elections" in Iran are a joke and it isn't like the US where rebellion towards the 'rulers' a la Cindy Sheehan is accepted. If Cindy had done in Iran what she tried here she would have long ago taken a dirt nap;) . Alas I don't see the young Iranians wielding the power or arms to overthrow the mullahs, so I say the bombing begins in 8 months.

Yea, umm, quick thought, could you be so brave later on too, and take the hit when some f'ed up terrorist who's family your airstrike killed walks into a downtown restaurant with a bomb-belt?

No, you can't can you. You wouldn't if you could. You're all talk, bomb them, bomb this, bomb that.

Well there are repercussions. And besides poking the biggest religious martry-nests with a stick, you want to pretend its the moral thing to do, as well. You want airstrikes on civilian facilities, and you know that retaliation will be against American civilians. You don't even know if the rest of the world will be content to wag their fingers, or if they will impose sanctions, or intervene with troops of their own!

And you are so brave to declare we are at 'war' right now, war this war that, but we refuse to declare war on ANYONE. And we refuse to acknowledge that the enemies are prisoners of WAR. You are as two-faced as Kerry!

And your ultimate crowning achievment, you just tow the party line no matter what. No Matter What. Must be nice to not have to think. Why do you feel SYRIA is the enemy, when SAUDI ARABIA KNOCKED DOWN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

"You gotta attack those enemies, ya know, because Ann Coulter said so, ya know, and she's a woman who looks like a man, ya know, so it must be right." BS. SAUDI ARABIA attacked us. You ignore it. You attack Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, no-one gives a crap.

You don't even have your propaganda straight, for Pete's sake. The gov't here already issued the new truth in doubleplusgood speak, and they said they were wrong about Saddam having WMDs. Jeeze, keep up with your propaganda if you want to play this game.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul warns us again." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!